Bunning agrees to deal, ends hold on unemployment benefits extension

posted at 7:45 pm on March 2, 2010 by Allahpundit

I’m surprised Reid was willing to offer him something. This thing was (almost) pure win for Democrats.

In the end Bunning agreed to a deal allowing him one vote on an amendment to pay for the bill’s $10 billion cost. That proposal was offered by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) last Thursday at the start of his filibuster, but Bunning rejected it because he feared his amendment would not pass.

Reid has also agreed to give Bunning two votes on amendments to a larger, one-year extension bill that is currently under consideration in the Senate…

Thousands of federal highway employees who had been furloughed as a result of Bunning’s filibuster will likely be able to return to work later this week, and unemployment insurance checks will be sent to recipients after several days of delay.

As Ed explained earlier, Bunning wasn’t objecting to extending benefits by $10 billion, he was objecting to how Democrats were willing to violate their own pay-go principles by refusing to offset the outlay right away. A victory for fiscal responsibility! And yet…

[I]n recessions, the length of time for which people need “temporary” assistance stretches out. That means that the government has to respond with temporary benefit extensions. These aren’t just good for the people who are unemployed; it’s also good for us. Unemployment assistance is one of the “automatic fiscal stabilizers” that all but the most hard-nosed conservative economists agree help smooth the business cycle in modern industrial countries. Indeed, it’s one of the most effective forms of stimulus we have.

Even if you think the government needs a plan to get its house in order, why on earth is Bunning making a stand on this issue? It’s political poison–even the Republican base knows people who are out of work. It’s terrible economic policy–suddenly cutting off the taps would have nasty knock-on effects on the economy. And while it’s a lot of money, it’s one of the few government programs that pretty much unequivocally improve the net welfare of the American people. If Bunning wants to hold up something, how about finding some useless defense appropriations to complain about?

According to McClatchy, fully 1.2 million people have been waiting for their checks. Like I say, if I were Reid, I would have thrown up my hands and claimed that I and my new 1.2 million friends were at the GOP’s mercy until Bunning relented. Let’s poll this one! Politics or principle?

In principle I wholeheartedly agree to holding legislators accountable to the laws they passed. Unemployment benefits at this critical time is about the only exception I can think of right now. Right idea. Bad timing.

After Rush reset the battlefield today on this issue, they had no choice. It was about the Dems not living up to their own law of pay go, not about those mean republicans denying unemployment benefits.

Why didn’t the Republicans show up on this? Afraid of the whole “holding up benefits from entitled citizens” thing? How long is toooo long? Why are they entitled? How is this helping the economy? Where were their principals? If you can’t stand up for this when will you stand up?

The average person doesn’t even know what paygo is, and still won’t after this episode. All they will hear is that a GOP senator held up unemployment checks. On principle Bunning was right, but it was the wrong fight at the wrong time.

Unemployment assistance is one of the “automatic fiscal stabilizers” that all but the most hard-nosed conservative economists agree help smooth the business cycle in modern industrial countries. Indeed, it’s one of the most effective forms of stimulus we have.

Er … How could something be “stimulative” if it’s a “stabilizer”? I don’t think the McClatchy folks understand what the word “stimulus” means.

The GOP should stand with the 90% of Americans who ARE working and struggling, instead of the 10% who are not. About 75% of the 10% who are unemployed have never worked and are chronic welfare/leeches etc. and have no intentions of getting a job.

No need in punishing those who would lose their COBRA coverage, et al, merely because they have been caught in the downturn of this Obama-nable economy and who aren’t as well-cared for as their political uber-menschen.

Allah, I don’t think this was as much a loser as you make it out to be. Earlier today as I was flippping through the channels, I stopped on CNN to hear them discussing the Bunning filibuster. He was actually getting a pretty decent explanation from the analysis why he was filibustering. The coverage was quite objective. From what I have heard from people here in my neck of the woods, everyone understood why he was filibustering, and they expected that he would get something for it. Senator Bunning is retiring, and my take is this “Bunning’s last stand” may very well make him a folk hero.

Where oh where is the emergency legislation to cut the deficit? It seems that nearly all economists say that these deficits are unsustainable; hell, Teh Won even said it. Now THAT sounds like the real emergency.

Then I remind myself that there will be excellent health coverage in place, as I live in my tent. Surely one of the last 3 doctors in America will give me an appointment.

Allah, I don’t think this was as much a loser as you make it out to be. Earlier today as I was flippping through the channels, I stopped on CNN to hear them discussing the Bunning filibuster. He was actually getting a pretty decent explanation from the analysis why he was filibustering. The coverage was quite objective. From what I have heard from people here in my neck of the woods, everyone understood why he was filibustering, and they expected that he would get something for it. Senator Bunning is retiring, and my take is this “Bunning’s last stand” may very well make him a folk hero.

paulsur on March 2, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Look, I hurt for people with no job, but Allah’s beef is because he is an emotion-driven beta male. There are emotions and feelings, and there is reality. And the reality it that if we can’t pay for it, you don’t get it.

I’m sick of these limp-wristed Republicans constantly giving the Democrats a pass for talking their talk but never walking their walk.

Good for Bunning.

I don’t feel sorry for a bunch of people who got paid time off work and a bunch of others who have a check delayed a few days. Excuse me while I laugh at the thought of outrage. You really think these people won’t get their back pay? The damn bill is retroactive.

The average person doesn’t even know what paygo is, and still won’t after this episode. All they will hear is that a GOP senator held up unemployment checks. On principle Bunning was right, but it was the wrong fight at the wrong time.

Mark1971 on March 2, 2010 at 8:00 PM

Then it’s time to teach them, eh? Is their ignorance any excuse for irresponsible behavior?

Oh, and you used the term “filibuster” 3 times in your post. What Bunning did was withhold unanimous consent, not a filibuster. All Harry Reid had to do was bring the bill to the floor and it would have passed. This was all staged by the Dems to make Bunning and GOP look like the bad guy for cutting off free money when that is really a bunch of bull.

Why should I have to take the money I’ve made, money I earned and could use to pay bills, to fund someone else who’s been out of a job for like a year?

I’m not a charity, and the federal government shouldn’t be one either. People are pissed that Bunning made them wait to get a share of other people’s money? Tough. You’re lucking you’re getting it at all.

I hope people understand that employers pay into the unemployment fund based on what is being drawn out from prior employees. If someone worked for me 18 months ago, quit and they got a new job and then were fired from that job after 12 months the unemployment goes against the new employer for 12 months and then goes against me. This effectively becomes a tax increase for the business and reduces the funds available to grow the business and hire new employees.

Unemployment? Bah! My pension benefits from Lehman Bros. have been cut to $262 per month so instead of early retirement I’m back at work. I took an $8/hr job last August and I also get paid commission on incoming sales calls. I am now making $3000 a month and using part of this income to build a new business.
These people need to get to work!

Congress wanted the rubber stamp of unanimous consent in order to add $10 billion more to the deficit. Bunning simply reminded the Dems of their PayGo hypocrisy. Were the Dems or the Republicans for that matter willing to cut $10 billion elsewhere. Pay attention to which piggies squealed the loudest over his perfectly fine parliamentary move.

I sympathize with those who have lost their jobs in this economy, but I wonder do they have to demonstrate that they are seeking employment or retraining while they are drawing these unemployment checks?

I know someone that asked to be laid off just before having her baby. The baby is almost two years old now. She hasn’t looked for a job once in those two years yet keeps collecting a check!!!!

blink on March 2, 2010 at 8:22 PM

That’s just fraud. You’re supposed to at least look for a job and maintain your job search records while you collect unemployment benefits. It’s not supposed to be paid maternity leave.

99 weeks of free money. 99 weeks of unemployment checks that are more than the guy managing the McDonalds up the street for 12 hours a day.

uknowmorethanme on March 2, 2010 at 8:24 PM

Yeah, but the guy managing the McDonald’s is setting himself up for better things down the road, while the person collecting unemployment will have a 2-year gap on the resume, which never looks good.

I just wish that the GOP would have used this to get an agreement to reform unemployment insurance. I think it should work like 401k plans, where you can get your income tax-deferred if you put some of it into an unemployment fund. If you never become unemployed, you can draw out of that fund at a certain age, just like a 401k. That would eliminate fraud and eliminate any stigma of collecting unemployment, because it would be your own money. You are already funding the unemployment insurance fund with salary you don’t get paid because your employer pays into the fund. Eliminate the state as middleman and demand a slightly higher wage, which you can then put into your tax-deferred account.

That said, I’ve seen studies that say for every $10K you make in salary pre-unemployment, you can expect to search for a job for 1 month. That’s in normal times, never mind the current mess. Someone making $50K pre-unemployment can probably expect an 8 to 10 month job search currently, unfortunately.

Here’s a thought. For the 1 million people who lost unemployment benefits as of midnight Sunday…the 28th of Feb, they will be able to reapply when this passes. I PROMISE YOU. The dems will use the “new unemployment figures” to their advantage. It’s because of Bunning that the claims for unemeployment went up and has nothing to do with the economy or Obama.

Bunning should be ashamed of himself, suggesting that the Democrats dig into their slushfund to pay for this bill. They need to keep that porkulus money to bribe voters in November.

I was happy to see Jim DeMint make a floor speech in support of Senator Bunning today. I’d love to know where the rest of them were.

The next question is why they weren’t attacking the LSM for falsely reporting Bunning was filibustering the extention. All he was doing was asking the Democrats to pay for it. Once again, the LSM shows they can’t get the job done.

I may have missed it, has one media outlet actually explained what Senator Bunning was doing and how the Democrats were trying to avoid their pay-go responsibilities?

Everything we do has to be the right thing, but it also has to look the right way. The Dems have had this one in their playbook forever. Bunning couldn’t find a better issue to highlight the pay-as-you-go charade?

Bunning recognized the hypocrisy of Democrats claiming to promote PAY GO, just three months ago. Rush played Obama’s You Tube PAY GO Saturday address. If Republicans were to be the party of fiscal discipline, they needed to stand with Bunning.

I put Meh. In order for Bunning to be succesful, the population would have to understand that the Dems are violating their 10 day old pay-go rules. I was watching CNN at lunch (admitedly while listening to Rush) and did not hear them mention the pay-go issue. Without this info, it is not readly appearent to the masses what Bunning is doing. TO the ignorant it looks like he is blocking unemployment extensions only (which I actually support…no more extensions that is).

I wonder if any other conservative elected people are paying attention. They could probably go a long way toward cementing their electoral support with righties if they pulled this kind of stunt more and stuck it to the leftists. I actually thought about sending Bunning a few bucks myself. I wonder if anyone will look at his political contributions over the last few days. (I didn’t know who he was or that he had already announced his retirement.) I bet there’s a surprise in store….

Jobs, jobs, jobs. We need jobs, not unemployment. Don’t people get like 99 weeks of unemployment? That is beyond generous and more than enough of a safety net if we simply stop BO from destroying America’s economy.

By virtue of your statement would “use” the system. I have no doubt there are those who do, but let’s examine this from the perspective of someone who does not.

I have been unemployed for over a year. Indiana requires 3 job searches per week, which must be submitted on your weekly claim. I do those 3 and more. It is a very bleak market out there. I have applied for all kinds of jobs and can’t even get a call back for an interview. Why you might ask? I think in large part my age plays a role, employers look at me with 30+ years experience against an entry level or less experienced (younger?) person and rightly or wrongly looks at the competition for less salary, the possibility that health costs will be less for that person. (I’m healthy as a horse, but they don’t know that) the interviewer or HR person is significantly younger and there is a negative perception of hiring someone older than you. Oh yes, it’s all true. I’ve made some call backs to follow up on applications and hear “you’re overqualified” “this is an entry level position” “the salary isn’t commensurate with your experience” the list of excuses goes on. How can I get a job if I’m not given a chance? Just because I’ve applied for a job where the salary is less than what I’ve made in the past, does not mean that I would not take the job nor be dissatisfied with it. I’ve even applied for part time jobs, where there is a dollar for dollar reduction in unemployment benefits to offset the salary you get part time.

I WANT to work, I’ve worked all my life since I was 15 years old and have never been out of work with the exception of 2 months 30 years ago when my company closed. Yet a lot of comment here and other places regarding this issue, criticize and would heap humiliation on me for continuing to collect unemployment. I can’t force someone to hire me. What would you have me do? I’m too young to retire, yet “too old” (apparently) to be a valuable employee.

I admire Senator Bunning for having the backbone to say No, without the “pay-go” legislation being adhered to. After all it was what the left wanted. It’s too bad that the media chose to portray his actions as obstructionist rather than honest legislation.

I have to disagree, Allah, that this was a win for Democrats. At the bottom line, the question they had to answer was… “Why are you wasting time arguing with Senator Bunning rather than funding the bill?”

Without a good answer, they had no choice but to offer Bunning concessions. Meanwhile, their lack of commitment to PayGo is exposed.

You can question whether or not this was a hill to die on, but if the GOP plans to try and become the party of fiscal responsibility, you have to start somewhere. And let’s be truthful here: this was no filibuster and Bunning did nothing to prevent a vote. He merely required that there be a vote. The Democrats -and alas a lot of the Republicans- wait until the last second to fund spending bills and then pass them by unanimous consent. This prevents them from having to go on record as voting for a particular piece of legislation. In this instance, Bunning said “No UC, I’d like a recorded vote and a note on how you plan to fund it due to the LAW we recently passed.” Of course, the bill in question is a political hot potato, which begs the question of why this wasn’t just put to a vote, as it would certainly have passed.

I have to ask: is it asking too much to require legislators to go on record with actual votes on bills?

Violating principles is the democrat way. It doesn’t matter if it’s one of their rules or one of the R’s. The Paygo will be broken every time they vote on any spending because we don’t have the money anyway.

I know a few people have brought this up already, but it bears repeating: stop calling what Jim Bunning did a “filibuster”. Words mean things, and refusing to grant unanimous consent does not denote a “filibuster”. I’m getting really pissed off at the twisting of the english language to suit nefarious purposes. It’s up to us to hold people accountable when they do.